First, I needed to word vomit about my mess of ideas for our final group project. When we first started brainstorming, I was excited about the possibility of an installation of some sort but, as time went on, I realized this is probably less likely with the time we have. (I will keep it in mind for future projects anyway…) Then, I was excited to include something audio related since that is a bit of a quick, but still interesting and different, approach to the project. My first audio idea had to do with an audio file of each of us personally “defining” whatever subject we found most intriguing in the semester and compiling those together with some visual aspect.

Once we met in our breakout rooms, we kind of stuck to a more writing heavy idea, which I was on board with because it had to do with the concept of remixing, something I’m really comfortable with and still intrigued by. If we do go ahead with the remixes of fairy tales, I think I’ll choose Alice in Wonderland, mostly because the story explores identity and that’s something that has been so important in all our of readings. I’d rather not just write a remix and call it a day though. I still want to include some other element (maybe audio, but now I’m thinking of colleges since the aesthetics of the story easily match that) to elevate the piece.

Moving onto the reading for this week, I’m not sure if I’m still too stuck of Freire, but a lot of what these writers explore does match with what he claimed in his essay. The quote, “Claims of universalism have given way to the demands of the particular, but the particulars have their own universalisms.” (72) was something that resonated with me. I think this has to do with erasing the individual experience by assuming that, if they are placed under the same umbrella, those experiences are the same. I guess it clicked because of Freire’s claim that the oppressors tend to view their surroundings as objects rather than real people and this kind of thinking is just as lazy. There is no real work or thought being put into it.

“Public voices, though, are required to listen to other public voices, and listening can cause uncomfortable changes.” (72) Instead of feeling and acknowledging the uncomfortable, it is pushed aside and deemed unimportant. However, in avoiding or ignoring it, there is no action towards understanding and no way of moving forward. We end up stuck in the mud.

paper: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lhCP3VpTSrfqHMoJUVn087Cj8NsQ5kjx1E5JVvi2k3U/edit

slides :

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1G8NES-uSG8qaFqbVfBQKwxovi6vYeh9dT21C2BdRVwE/edit#slide=id.g18142ebd1e5_0_0

As someone in the educational field as myself, reading pieces as such really bring an insightful and helpful lens to what we might have known or honestly haven’t know. And I know I say that every piece is insightful but that’s because every piece in this class has been. The reading was quite interesting to say the least as this piece is intended to spark a debate in efforts to offer “better” ways to teach writing. I put the word better in quotes because someone’s version of better does not fit everyone. And just like anything else in life, there are multiple ways to do one thing.

I really enjoyed how this piece covered a lot of writing myths that we may have encountered or dealt with personally. I also found it helpful as to how the reading really dived in to many bad ideas; such as, bad ideas what good writing is, bad ideas about genres, and so on and so fourth. I found this to be helpful because as I kept reading I was able to develop also a new understanding and I was kind of informed on some new ideas, which I always enjoy.

One of the ideas that really stood out the most to me in this piece was this;

“Here’s why that idea needs to die: Writing and language are like screens between humans and what we (can) know about theworld around us. Even that which we perceive as cold, hard facts are ultimately filtered through the words and symbols we use tomake sense of…well, everything. Thus, the process of learning to write is a matter of broader intellectual development and surviv- al-gear-for-living. Writing, in other words, embraces much more than relaying a preset message to a reader. As students learn how to approach the written word—how to read it, yes, but also how to read the many voices, ideas, moods, circumstances, and rhythms that influenced and shaped the words on the page—they begin to understand how language is an essential tool for learning and exploration.”

I couldn’t agree more. And this little sample right here is just one of the many parts in the piece I agree with. Writing is really the foundation for all of us but the way we explore it and dabble more into it, writing can become a whole new world with lots more deeper meaning.

Ricki’s selection of essays from Bad Ideas About Writing focused on writing teachers and, well, the bad ideas that people have about them and about the field of writing studies in general. The first essay, “You’re Going to Need This for College,” as well as the last essay, “Anyone Can Teach Writing” mesh well together and call to mind some of our previous discussions. These essays speak about the problems with the English curriculum in both high school and college. “You’re Going to Need This for College” discusses issues with the high school English curriculum and how it often places a great emphasis on continued college education instead of focusing on the here and now, helping students to learn how to write well whether or not they intend to continue on to college. This essay also tied in with “Secondary School English Teachers Should Only be Taught Literature” which expands on another problem in high school English courses: the teachers are taught how to teach literature to students, but not to teach students how to write. This is not a problem with the teachers themselves but with the education system. “Anyone Can Teach Writing” helps to talk about the reflection of these problems in colleges: adjuncts, who often have little training in teaching writing, are paid and treated poorly and made to teach introductory college writing courses. If students are not being taught how to write by people who are trained to teach them such things, in both high school and college, then it’s no wonder that college professors complain about students writing capabilities.

“Dual-Enrollment Writing Courses Should Always be Pursued” was interesting to me for its emphasis on the differences between a high school English class versus a college-level one. This should be required reading for any (college professor!) theorist who is going to posit solutions for high-school-level English classes without actually teaching any. The things that work well in college-level courses often cannot even be implemented in high-school-level courses because of the curriculum and the constraints of the modern education system.

The two articles that I found most interesting (given our current global situation) also go hand-in-hand with each other: “Face-to-Face Courses are Superior to Online Courses” and “Anyone Can Teach an Online Writing Course.” In the wake of the pandemic, most if not all of us in the class experienced either taking or teaching (or both!) online classes. The problem with these courses is that we were unprepared and that we didn’t make the decision ourselves. I agree with the idea in “Face-to-Face…” that online writing courses can be just as effective as in-person ones. I still learned a great deal in my online courses during the pandemic. The problem comes, though, with difficulties paying attention and with professors being unsure how to teach an online course because they weren’t given training for it. I didn’t choose to take online courses, so I had problems paying full attention during them. My professors didn’t choose to teach online courses, so many of them didn’t have the skills talked about in “Face-to-Face….” And, as “Anyone Can Teach…” tells us, teaching online (writing courses in this essay, but honestly any course at all) requires special training and education. Being forced to take and teach online courses out of necessity was surely a burden to us all, even though I agree that online courses can be enriching, fulfilling, and the best option for some students.

Thoughts on Our Group Project Final

I’m excited to begin working with everyone on our final! We came up with a lot of good ideas in our last class, and I think our overall discussion about what’s important to us and what we want to focus on was fruitful. I love our remix idea, and whether we decide to go with that OR decide to pursue a different path, I have no doubt that we’re going to make something exciting. I hope that everyone is able to express their interests and thoughts in our final, and that we ultimately can make something everyone enjoys working on and is proud of.

Since this week’s reading is multiple mini-essays on the topic of writing, I’m going to address my thoughts about each one separately.

“You’re Going to Need this for College” by Andrew Hollinger

• Hollinger definitely understands the time constraints that teachers are up against, and I appreciate that he acknowledged that.
• He asserts that if you can’t answer the questions “Why do I need this?” or “Why are we doing this?” then maybe whatever it is needs to be reevaluated to determine if it should be used in the classroom. This is a helpful thought to keep in mind as I start revamping curriculum for the classes I’m teaching.
• Hollinger points out that students often see writing (and education in general) as simply a means to an end. The goal should be helping students realize that education is a personal endeavor that everyone should enjoy because it’s fulfilling. I would love some tips on how to help students realize this.

“Dual-Enrollment Writing Classes Should Always Be Pursued” by Caroline Wilkinson

• The school I teach at offers dual-enrollment courses with Middlesex County College, and I never really stopped to think about the potential drawbacks, so this was an interesting read.
• Wilkinson points out the many ways that dual-enrollment fails to prepare students for actual college classes, including the difference in high school and college atmospheres, less time for discussion, changes in course workload, lack of instructor experience, and the difficulties of conferencing with students one-on-one. Ultimately she argues that dual-enrollment courses don’t properly reflect college level classes, which is a detriment to the students.
• She does offer some possible solutions to the problems caused by dual-enrollment classes. These include the college sharing its objectives, curriculum, syllabi, schedules, and assignments with high schools, as well as giving proper training to the high school instructors who will teach the course.

“Secondary-School English Teachers Should Only Be Taught Literature” by Elizabethada A. Wright

• Wright thinks the issue of lack of writing preparation for first-year college students stems from lack of teacher preparation on how to teach writing. (Since I was an elementary ed major, I can’t speak to this from my own experience, but I can say without a doubt that current high school English curricula don’t include enough writing instruction. It’s something our district is currently trying to rectify.)
• She notes that literature classes are important and shouldn’t be replaced with writing courses, but that more writing courses need to be available, with specific focus on rhetorical writing strategies.
• I disagree with the claim that high school English teachers are using formulaic writing because they don’t have a solid enough understanding of rhetorical writing. Kerri explained the reasons teachers do this quite well in her presentation two weeks ago.

“Face-to-Face Courses are Superior to Online Courses” by Tiffany Bourelle and Andy Bourelle

• I have to assume the Bourelles are speaking solely about college courses when they make the claim that there’s “no significant difference between learning in online classes versus classes taught in f2f environments” because the two-year learning gap that we’re still dealing with due to the pandemic would beg to differ with that statement.
• The Bourelles point out that online courses integrate multimodal approaches to writing, which improves students’ 21st century communication skills, which is true. However, f2f classes also do this, so it’s inaccurate to say that it’s solely a benefit of online courses. In our district, we’ve been taking a multimodal approach for at least a decade, exposing students to videos, news broadcasts, websites, podcasts, etc. in conjunction with traditional novels, short stories, and poems.
• Given that this article was published way before the pandemic, it doesn’t address the biggest issue with online learning when you consider the differences between K-12 and college education. It comes down to this: College students, who presumably WANT to be taking the classes they’re taking, are going to learn better virtually because they have a vested interested in the course, whereas K-12 students who are forced to take classes based on the standards set forth by the state, will easily lose interest when not in f2f environments.

“Anyone Can Teach an Online Writing Course” by Beth L. Hewett

• I’d like to make a motion to permanently delete the words asynchronous, synchronous, and hybrid from the English language. If I never hear them again, it will be too soon.
• Hewett asserts that teaching writing online requires different skills than teaching it in person, in order be successful. This is absolutely true, and one of the reasons that virtual learning was so difficult is because most public school teachers had exactly 0 training before we had to use it.
• She does a good job of explaining the specific skills needed for instructors to successfully teach online writing.

Overall, it was interesting to see some different and controversial opinions about the teaching of writing, especially the ideas that I had never considered before.

The idea of formulaic writing has always been something that I am on the fence about if I am being honest. As a student, having a structured formula was an aspect of writing that I relied on. Not in the sense that I could not write without it. I just felt more comfortable having a guide, especially when I was younger. I struggled with organizing my thoughts. I always had so much to say and it was sometimes confusing because there was no structure. Once I learned how to create structured pieces that is when my writing improved. I would not have learned that without the help of writing formulas that my teacher introduced.

As a teacher and just as an adult in general I can see how formulaic writing is not beneficial to students. It could turn into something they rely on. Even in my own classroom I have students everyday that question how long a writing assignment should be or how many sentences in a paragraph. It has gotten to the point where I do not even answer anymore. I tell them to write as much as they feel they need to answer the prompt correctly. Part of me completely understands where they are coming from though. They live in a world where they are not learning to be more knowledgeable, they are learning to make the grade. So how could you really blame them? Personally, I cant be the teacher that pounds into her kids head that making the grade is the most important thing. So I try to keep their creative juices flowing with small quickwrites that they do not have requirements for. But this makes me think, can we actually get away from formulaic writing? Is that even possible? Is it beneficial? And if not then what else do we do ?

Here’s my essay & presentation!

Excited to hear your thoughts later :^)

I thoroughly enjoyed reading Paulo Freire’s work this week. Pedagogy of the Oppressed gave me a lot of knowledge and a lot of ideas to “chew on” and work with. In fact, I was underlining and annotating my paper as I read because I found myself that invested in the work, eager to understand as much as possible. Freire’s work, in my opinion, strikes a beautiful balance between being rich in theory and being easily understood, and his pedagogical ideas, I can see, are deeply influential even today.

I find a lot of merit in Freire’s idea that humanization is “the people’s vocation.” I can think of no better goal for humankind than to work toward the freedom and justice of all people, and Freire posits that this very thing is the overarching goal of all humankind, right at the beginning of Chapter 1. We can see right at the start that, more than only a theory about education, Freire’s pedagogy is a sort of philosophy on life and humanity as well.

The main idea of Chapter 1 is the fact that, with the overarching goal of humanity being humanization, the only ones who can work towards and achieve this goal are the oppressed and those who are truly in solidarity with them. The work must be led by the oppressed, and those who wish to work alongside them must, rather than being paternalistic and “looking down” on them/patronizing, trust the oppressed and follow their lead. This is an idea that is echoed today, often expressed in the term of majority groups amplifying the voices of minority groups, not speaking over them or attempting to speak for them. Those in power must give the oppressed a “seat at the table” and allow them to speak for themselves and advocate for themselves, not try and do so for them (which, ultimately, as Freire describes, keeps the current oppressive class system intact, harming the oppressed and benefiting the oppressors.)

Freire posits that, during the initial stages of struggle, the oppressed often strive to become like their oppressor, because that is their model of humanity. The example I had in my head for this was as follows: a poor man strives to become like his boss, because he sees his wealth and control over others as success and he, too, wants to become successful. However, in order to become like his boss, this man too becomes an oppressor, treating those under him poorly and hoarding his wealth because that is the example he saw of a “successful” man. We see cases like this a lot today, however, I think we do recognize it as being wrong; think about the movies you’ve seen or stories you’ve read and heard where the above example is the plot, and where the once-poor man realizes the error of his ways and sees that he has to start treating people better and caring less about his wealth. Despite some kind of internal recognition that greed and the mistreatment of others are wrong, though, people keep doing it. There is still the struggle of wanting to “become” the oppressor, of chasing the mainstream idea of a successful human. This moving of roles, though, from oppressed to oppressor, is not an authentic solution to the problem at hand. Instead, both parties must be liberated, by the hand of the oppressed groups seeking humanity.

Something else that really resonated with me is the idea that even once the issue starts to be authentically resolved, with the oppressed fighting for and gaining their humanity, the former oppressors will start to feel oppressed themselves instead of realizing that both groups are now more liberated. Freire states “conditioned by the experience of oppressing others, any situation other than their former seems to them like oppression. Formerly, they could eat, dress, wear shoes, be educated, travel, and hear Beethoven; while millions did not eat, had no clothes or shoes, neither studied nor traveled, much less
listened to Beethoven. Any restriction on this way of life, in the name of the rights of the community, appears to the former oppressors as a profound violation of their individual rights.” This reminds me of how members of majority groups today complain about minority groups fighting for equal rights. Some straight people will complain that the LGBTQ+ community is “taking over everything,” some white people complain about the Black Lives Matter movement, asking “what about white lives?” These people and others like them miss the point that minority groups have not enjoyed the rights, safety, protections, and freedoms that the majority groups always have. They don’t realize that equal rights are not in finite supply; everyone can and should have them, and everyone should keep fighting until those rights are afforded to all.

There was a part of this chapter that confused me a bit, though I think I may have worked through it. The part is as follows:

The pedagogy of the oppressed, animated by authentic, humanist
(not humanitarian) generosity, presents itself as a pedagogy of
humankind. Pedagogy which begins with the egoistic interests of
the oppressors (an egoism cloaked in the false generosity of paternalism) and makes of the oppressed the objects of its humanitarianism,
itself maintains and embodies oppression. It is an instrument of
dehumanization. This is why, as we affirmed earlier, the pedagogy
of the oppressed cannot be developed or practiced by the oppressors. It would be a contradiction in terms if the oppressors not only
defended but actually implemented a liberating education.

Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, page 54

I was specifically confused about the last two sentences. Of course, I agreed that the pedagogy could not be developed by oppressors; to be truthful, effective, and humanized, it had to be developed by those who were oppressed. However, I was confused by the notion that oppressors could not practice the pedagogy, either, and that they could not defend or implement a liberating education. Isn’t that the ultimate goal, I asked myself? For mainstream education to make use of this pedagogy in order to start breaking down the walls of oppression? Then I realized…those who are still in an oppressor mindset cannot practically teach a liberating education. In order for one to do so, one has to step out of the role of oppressor and come and work alongside the oppressed, amplifying their voices and following their lead. This, I think, is what Freire meant. It is not that educators who are part of the majority group cannot implement this pedagogy, but rather that they first must be transformed out of their role of the oppressor (even if this transformation requires not a physical change but a mental one) before they can be considered no longer oppressors but allies to the oppressed and therefore appropriately implement a liberating education.

So, these have been (some of!) my thoughts on Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Again, I found the reading extremely insightful and will probably aim to read the rest of the book in my free time, because though I don’t intend to become an educator, I think this is important information to know nonetheless if simply to become a better human being.

This was quite the insightful and interesting read of an analysis of the exploration relationship between the colonizer and the colonized. I feel as if though, Paulo Freire does an amazing job in explaining and touching base on the oppressed with his own cultural experience teaching adults in Brazil how to read and write. One insightful contributing thought Paulo Freire mentions is how, pedagogy the “banking model of education.” He elaborates how it treats the student as an empty vessel to be filled with knowledge. Much in comparison to a piggy bank. He further mentions/argues that pedagogy should instead treat the learner as a co-creator of knowledge. Which in a sense, once he broke it down in his writing, I can agree.

The book is broke down into four chapters. What I found also fascinating and clearly went over my head, was that the book was first written in Portuguese. After much success after publication, it was later translated to English. Once again, completely went over my head that a Brazilian author would first write his book in Portuguese, rather than English. Nonetheless, this was a good read.

I’ll admit that it was a little difficult for me to get into this text at first, possibly due the translation or the repetitive nature of the writing. This was one of the first pieces we’ve read this semester that wasn’t directly tied to writing or teaching, but its message is still incredibly relevant in those fields.

Paulo Freire starts off the first chapter of his book by explaining his main idea, which is that dehumanization of people is humanity’s biggest problem. This begs the question of whether true humanity, a world in which no one is oppressed by anyone else, is even a realistic possibility.

Freire asserts that there is definitely a need for humanity, as seen by the desire of oppressed groups to achieve freedom and justice from the exploitation and violence of oppressors. He assures readers that dehumanization is not humanity’s destiny just because it has happened so frequently in the past, and that is something that can be overcome.

Due to the inhumane practices that oppression results in, Freire claims that the oppressors themselves are also dehumanized, leaving the task of ending dehumanization and oppression to those who are oppressed. When the world has to rely on oppressed people to first recognize their oppression and then band together to solve it, it’s no wonder oppression has persisted for centuries, especially when you take into consideration the risks that oppressed people face when tackling this task. First, they obviously face retaliation from their oppressors, which could lead to even more violence against the oppressed. This could hinder the oppressed from perceiving their oppression as “a limiting situation which they can transform” (Freire 49). They also tend to distrust their own judgement due to their oppression, making recognizing the oppression even more difficult. Then there’s the risk of the oppressed turning into the oppressors because that’s the only model they have for how things work. And then even if the oppressed do manage to enact change, the former oppressors may feel oppressed because their “rights” have been taken away. (Which rights? Only their “right” to treat other people as subhuman.)

Freire acknowledges that sometimes oppressors can be made to recognize their power and become allies to the oppressed, but there are very specific markers of true solidarity that move beyond the “generous” type of oppressors who don’t see their own faults. Essentially this just boils down to the former oppressors seeing the oppressed people as humans rather than objects, as well as recognizing that throughout history, violence has never been initiated by the oppressed.

I think that Freire certainly understands the root causes of oppression and does a decent job explaining them. It all just seems pretty unfair that the responsibility of ending dehumanization and oppression lies solely on the shoulders of the oppressed. And yet, this fact rings true even today. It is constantly the oppressed groups bringing their oppression to the notice of the oppressors and bystanders, rather than the oppressors coming to the realization that they’re oppressing others. Whether oppression is based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or any other determining factor, it remains the oppressed groups themselves that are trying to enact change. This should bother more people, but centuries of oppression prove it doesn’t.